Hold on here. Stop discussing the wrong things.
Mr. Melton,
I am not on a board, but I am all ears when any board administrator says something. So I think I can predict the response of a good board anyway.
I will start with a direct quote. "Say what you do, and do what you say! " Can it be much more simple than that? We have a duty when we define our SOW work in any appraisal report to have done what we said we did, to say what it is we do, and what it is we did NOT do! This includes a description of our methods used, or NOT used, when we inspect a subject property. A description of the information sources we used, or did NOT use especially when they are industry standard expected sources!
What does the above mean, especially when most of our peers certainly DO say what they did and did not do. It means when an appraiser uses a county sketch, plagerizes county measurements, and fails to inform the intended users of that report that they did so, the appraiser has violated USPAP. Why do I say this? I say it because not only is it reasonable to assume that the expectations of the client was that they had hired an appraiser that would measure, and did not plagerize another source's GLA estimate, but that the SOW would meet most intended users expectations as well. Not only that, but using any 03/2005 form for mortgage purposes certainly carries with it a reasonable expectation on the part of intended users that Fannie guidelines have been followed. What is our DUTY when we do not follow Fannie guidelines? Gosh, what do you know, our peers explain what they did not follow and why. Correct?
So what happens when we have ourselves an appraiser that plagerizes sketches and GLA measurements regarding a subject improvement? When that appraiser does not disclose this is what they did; does not disclose they did not measure; does not disclose they did not follow secondary market guidelines with a secondary market intended use; and also does not disclose, that their unusual act not in keeping with their peers acts, would have to include an EA that the information they plagerized is correct. Otherwise, the credibility of the analysis could be adversely impacted.
Now I know some on the forum are going to, and have, jump in and point out "Where does the information for the comps come from? " ... If I were on a board if they attemped that for an excuse they would get shot down so fast!... The comps are a different topic. All of their peers have to use other sources for that and make assumptions regarding it. The SUBJECT information is the point here, not the comparable! Saying what you do, and doing what you say is the point. It's called not misleading the intended users.
Is the violation(s) specifically what the appraiser did if it had been agreed to with the client, and disclosed in the appraisal report, no measurements would be taken during inspection? ... No .... The violation(s) comes from the fact peers are all measuring, and if what this appraiser did was NOT specifically disclosed in the appraisal report. In that case, I personally would, and do, deem the lack of disclosure, to be SOW Rule, Ethics Rule, and Standard Two violations.
Webbed.
